Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 18:11:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Ray Russ
Subject: Pro gay letters part 1 (fwd)
From: BCS41@aol.com
Subject: Pro gay letters part 1
A COLLECTION OF GOOD LETTERS TO THE EDITOR TO REFER TO OR
COPY FROM WHEN YOU ARE WRITING YOUR OWN LETTERS TO YOUR
LOCAL MEDIA. FEEL FREE TO COPY ANY OR ALL MATERIAL
HEREIN!
-------------
SPEAKING UP FOR GAY RIGHTS IS A MATTER OF JUSTICE
Editor;
Being a gay person I have seen friends discriminated
against in housing and employment. If we get harassed
it's our problem. If we get attacked it's because we
provoked it. If we raise our voices we're flaunting
ourselves. If we have AIDS we deserve it. If we march
with pride we're recruiting children. If we want or
already have children we're unfit parents. If we stand up
for our rights we're overstepping our boundaries. If we
don't have a relationship with the opposite sex we haven't
given it a chance. If we have a relationship with someone
of the same sex it's not recognized.
We are told our love is not "real." Our
relationships receive none of the legal, tax, job or
insurance benefits available for others. We are
constantly forced to question our own worth as human
beings. Experts estimate that a third of teenage suicides
are kids who realize they are gay.
Our history is virtually absent from literature. Our
lives aren't depicted on television shows or in movies
(except as silly fools or sadistic killers). Respected
gay celebrities, who would be good role models and
examples, keep that part of their life hidden.
We are called promiscuous by the same people who
oppose letting us marry, which would encourage monogamy
and commitment. When we ask for equality and fairness
they say we ask for "special privileges."
There are anti-gay crusaders today deliberately
spreading lies, fear and hate, for so-called "religious"
reasons. (That is the very opposite of the caring and
compassion that religious people are expected to
exemplify.) They write letters to the paper, while my gay
friends in Dallas are afraid to.
Because of all these reasons, and more, I think it is
important to speak up for gay rights. It's a matter of
justice.
-----
CHRISTIAN VIEW ON HOMOSEXUALS
Editor,
Reaction has been that "the Bible says that
homosexuality is a sin." But what to the Ten Commandments
say about gay people? Zip. What did Jesus have to say
about gay people? Zip. Verses in St. Paul are supposed
to condemn gay people, but unless you have a doctored
translation, what they are really condemning is idolatry -
putting worldly things before God. They don't say
anything about committed relationships, gay or straight.
Leviticus does admittedly say something bad about men
sleeping together. Leviticus also says not to eat pork.
So there ought to be a lot of hog farmers and tenderloin
lovers reevaluating Leviticus right now.
One's sexual orientation is an inherent, unchangeable
fact, defined either genetically or by the environment in
the first few years of life. There is no research showing
that it is a "choice."
-------
UNFAIR TO BAN HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES
Editor;
I commend Hawaii should be commended for considering
legalizing homosexual marriages. Isn't marriage between
two people who love each other a laudable and quite
traditional notion?
It seems absurd and unfair that a heterosexual couple
can fly to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and get married
on a whim, with all the legal, tax, government and
insurance benefits and rights that automatically grants to
them, while a gay couple I know who have been together for
27 years in a stable, monogamous, loving relationship
cannot marry.
Some say marriage should be reserved only for those
couples who biologically reproduce. Using that argument,
what do you say to couples who are childless by choice,
age, or infertility? That their love for each other is
less valid without children?
Some say they oppose it because homosexuality is
against their religion. I can only reply that marriage in
a secular office by a justice of the peace is irrelevant
to their concerns. Just as a Catholic may refuse to
participate in the rites of a Jewish couple, they may
decline to participate.
Only 30 years ago marriage between white and black
persons was a crime in 16 states. These states cited
"natural law," a vague grab-bag for justifying prejudice.
Many also said the Bible supported such laws. Perhaps 30
years from now we will find it just as incredible that two
people of the same sex were not entitled to legally commit
themselves to each other.
-----
FLAUNTING
Editor,
An recent letter to the editor criticizing gay people
said that "most Americans do not flaunt their sexual
preference, whatever it is."
Oh, yes they do. Heterosexuals flaunt it all the
time. They have public weddings, marriage announcements
published in the newspaper (along with affectionate-
appearing photographs), wear wedding rings, often old
hands, hug or even kiss in public, cuddle together at the
movie theater, etc.
-----
GAY KIDS
Editor,
Yet another scientific study has found evidence that
homosexuality is genetic, so one reason to teach tolerance
of gays is because a child you love may be among them.
Most of my gay friends grew up in households that
expressed negative attitudes about gays. The parents had
no idea their children were gay and the kids, not stupid,
hid how they felt as long as possible, terrified that
anyone would find out (30% of teenage suicides are kids
who realize they are gay). They certainly didn't "choose"
to have homosexual romantic feelings.
Those who found the courage to be honest with their
parents usually found acceptance over time, at least from
those parents who loved their kids enough to educate
themselves on the subject and discard myths and
stereotypes.
Some never told their family, preferring distance and
silence to possible rejection. They couldn't share
important details of their life, including life-partners,
and hated making up lies when asked personal questions, so
they just stopped communicating.
Others tried to deny their nature for a while, and
ended up miserable; either alone and lonely for many
wasted years, or forced into a non-sexual marriage with an
unsuspecting woman to try to change (it never works) or
for "cover."
A child's sexual orientation is beyond parental
control since it isn't a choice. Parents should educate
themselves before the day their child says, "Mom and dad,
sit down, I have something to tell you."
-----
GAYS CREATED, BUT NOT TREATED, EQUAL
Editor,
If Stephen Anderson (Letters, Aug. 3) really means it
when he says that homosexuals deserve the same rights to
life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as the rest of us
then he has no reason to oppose homosexual rights
initiatives because they are only to prevent
discrimination, not impose quotas or bestow anything
"special."
Mr. Anderson turns logic on its head when he says
that his opposition to equal rights for gays "descends
from the basic principle that all men are created equal,
regardless of ethnicity, religion, sex and sexual
preference." All men may have been created equal, but
they're not treated equally, and that's why civil rights
laws are in effect for all those categories except sexual
preference, which should be included.
Mr. Anderson says that giving rights to gays puts
everyone else at a disadvantage. I think a fairer society
makes the country as a whole stronger. Barry Goldwater
thinks so, too. In his Washington Post article, which
formed the basis for Donald Kaul's column, Goldwater wrote
"Job discrimination excludes qualified individuals, lowers
productivity and eventually hurts us all. Topping the new
world order means attracting the best and creating a
working environment where everyone an excel. Anything
less makes us a second-rate nation. It's not just bad -
it's bad business."
-----
LOOK AT LIFE FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE
Editor,
One of the facts of life for a gay person here in
America, and particularly for the majority of gays who
feel the need to remain in the closet, is the ability,
born of necessity, to look at life somewhat from the
outside, as an observer. We clearly see the double-
standard that we are judged by, the hypocrisy, the unfair
assumptions.
Are you the kind of person who is willing to see how
things look from a different point of view, or do you try
to avoid thinking about ideas that might challenge your
existing opinions?
One of the most powerful ways of seeing life in a new
light is called the "reverse questionnaire." It takes
common, often offensive assumptions about a minority and
mirrors them back to reveal prejudice and hypocrisy. It
illustrates the damaging effects of stereotypes.
Corporations and other organizations often use
reverse questionnaires in sensitivity training sessions.
Here are some types of questions designed for heterosexual
persons who have anti-gay attitudes:
* What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
* When and how did you decide you were heterosexual?
* Is it possible that heterosexuality is just a phase you
will grow out of?
* Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a
neurotic fear of people of the same sex?
* To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies?
How did they react?
* Why do you heterosexuals feel compelled to seduce others
into your lifestyle?
* Why do you insist on flaunting your sexuality? Can't
you just be what you are and keep it quiet?
* Studies show that more than 95 percent of child
molesters are heterosexual? Do you consider it safe to
expose children to heterosexual teachers?
* If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, is
it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?
* Even with all the social support marriage receives, the
divorce rate is over 50 percent and increasing. Why are
there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
* Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?
* Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the
human race survive if everyone was like you?
This type of role reversal startles many - and it's
best done with a sense of humor - but the prejudice and
hypocrisy of their assumptions soon dawns on people.
Also, take a took at heterosexual privilege. There
is much talk today about how gay people want "special
rights" or "special privileges" but it is really
heterosexuals who enjoy privileges that gay people do not.
What is "heterosexual privilege"? It is living
without ever having to think twice, face, confront or cope
with any of the following categories. If you are
heterosexual, you can choose to think about these if you
want to, but social forces don't require you to do so:
* Marrying - which includes the following privileges:
Public recognition and support for your intimate
relationship (receiving cards or phone calls celebrating
your commitment, supporting activities and social
expectations of longevity and stability for your committed
relationships); joint child custody; paid leave from
employment while grieving the death of your spouse;
property laws, filing joint tax returns, inheriting from
your spouse automatically under probate laws; sharing
health, auto and homeowners insurance policies at reduced
rates; immediate access to your loved one in case of
accident or emergency; family support for your life with
your chosen spouse.
* Never having to question your normalcy: Having
role models of your gender and sexual orientation;
learning about romance and relationships from fiction,
movies and TV; having positive media images of people with
whom you can identify.
* Validation from the culture in which you live:
Living with your spouse and doing so openly to all;
talking about your relationship and what projects,
vacations, etc. you and your partner are planning;
expressing pain when a relationship ends from death or
separation and having other people notice and tend to your
pain; receiving social acceptance by neighbors, colleagues
and good friends; not having to hide or lie about social
activities; dating the person of your desire in your
teenage years; working without always being identified by
your sexuality (i.e., you get to be a farmer, bricklayer,
artist, etc. without always being labeled the heterosexual
farmer, etc.)
* Institutional acceptance: Employment opportunity
(increased possibilities of getting a job); receiving
validation from your religious community; being able to be
a member of the clergy; being able to serve in the
military; being employed as a teacher in a pre-school
through high school without fear of being fired any day
because you are assumed to corrupt children; adopting
children; raising children without threats of state
intervention, without the children having to be worried
which of their friends might reject them because of their
parents' sexuality or culture.
Perhaps this exercise has made you more appreciative
of the advantages you have in society. Perhaps it's made
you more aware of the many struggles that gay people cope
with every day because they don't have the same advantages
that you take for granted. In any case, I hope you find
it enlightening to think about life from a different angle
from time to time.
-----
BARRY GOLDWATER ON "SPECIAL RIGHTS'
Editor;
Recently, conservative Barry Goldwater spoke out
against the religious right in favor of legislation to
protect gays against job discrimination. It was very
admirable of him. He wrote "Job discrimination against
gays - or anybody - is contrary to our founding
principles. Anybody who cares about real moral values
understands that this isn't about granting special rights
- it's about protecting basic rights."
He's absolutely correct. Equal rights aren't special
rights. Equality is not a special privilege. There is a
certain level of protection that everyone is entitled to
in this country and that's why they're called rights.
Gay people, like members of other minorities, face
irrational acts of prejudice from some people and extra
obstacles to overcome in order to be "equal." Civil
rights laws effectively put them on a level playing field
with everyone else.
The law currently protects members of the religious
right from being fired because of their beliefs. Isn't
that what they consider "special rights?" Yet I bet they
would feel threatened if opposing groups were working to
change the law so it would become legal to fire them
because of their religion or politics, as they are trying
to do to gays.
-----
THE BIBLE & HOMOSEXUALITY
Editor;
In response to a recent letter:
Regarding the Bible's supposed condemnation of
homosexuality, Biblical interpretation changes from time
to time. Approximately 150 years ago slavery was condoned
and even blessed by Christians who quoted Ephesians 6:5
("Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and
trembling."). Women were relegated to inferior positions
with the justification of I Corinthians 14:34 ("Women
should be silent in churches. For they are not permitted
to speak, but be subordinate.")
Today the denominations, of course, do not support
slavery. Did the Bible change? No, their interpretation
of the Bible did. Today, a growing number of Biblical
scholars recognize that the Bible does not condemn loving,
monogamous, responsible homosexual relationships.
Nine biblical citations are customarily invoked as
relating to homosexuality. Four (Deuteonomy 23:17, I
Kings 14:24, I Kings 22:46 and II Kings 23:7) simply
forbid prostitution, by men and women.
Two others (Leviticus 18:19-23 and Leviticus 20:10-
16) are part of what biblical scholars call the Holiness
Code. The code explicitly bans homosexual acts. But it
also prohibits eating raw meat, planting two different
kinds of seed in the same field, wearing garments made of
two different kinds of material, eating fat, tattoos, and
kindling a fire on sabbath day. Christians today do not
follow the rules and rituals described in Leviticus.
There is no mention of homosexuality in the four
Gospels of the New Testament. The moral teachings of
Jesus are not concerned with the subject. If
homosexuality were such an evil, don't you think Jesus
would have said something about it? The fact is that He
didn't, nor is it one of the Ten Commandments.
Three references from St. Paul are frequently cited
(Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10).
Any consideration of these statements on same-sex acts
must carefully view the social context of the Greco-Roman
culture in which Paul ministered. Prostitution and
pederasty (sexual acts between adult men and boys) were
the most commonly known same-sex acts, and that is what
the passages condemn, not loving, monogamous, responsible
adult relationships.
Romans 11:24 speaks of what is "unnatural." It does
not refer to so-called violations of the laws of nature,
but rather that it is unnatural to contradict one's own
nature. In view of this, we should observe that it is
"unnatural" for a person today with a gay sexual
orientation to attempt to live a heterosexual lifestyle.
And lest we forget Sodom and Gomorrah, recall that
the story is not about sexual perversion and homosexual
practice. It is about inhospitality, according to Luke
10:10-13, and failure to care for the poor, according to
Ezekiel 16:49-50.
The Bible verses people use to condemn gay people
have been distorted, mistranslated, or incorrectly
interpreted, resulting in hurt to people against whom the
original text was not directed.
-----
PAUL CAMERON, ANTI GAY CRUSADER
Editor;
Thanks to your columnist for shedding light on Paul
Cameron, the discredited former psychologist who has made
the demonizing of gays his life's work. Cameron, expelled
by the American Psychiatric Association in December, 1983
for unsound methods and misrepresentation of facts after
other psychologists charged him with distorting their
findings, provides the phony studies and statistics that
are most often quoted by anti-gay crusaders to give
authority, justification and respectability to their
campaigns of hate and discrimination.
Cameron's writings have been cited by people such as
Pat Buchanan, Cal Thomas and Pat Robertson. He served as
the scientific consultant for both the Oregon Citizens
Alliance and Colorado For Family Values, the main groups
pushing anti-gay referendums in those states. His
statistics were included in "Gay Agenda," a videotape
produced and widely circulated by the religious right.
Last year officials of the U. S. Army and Navy circulated
Cameron's studies around the Pentagon as they tried to
block the softening of the gay ban.
Cameron's phony studies and statistics continue to
cited because, unfortunately, many people want to believe
the worst about homosexuals, and they are looking for any
way to justify their prejudice.
-----
GAY RIGHTS DOES NOT UNDERMINE SOCIETY
Editor,
In his criticism of homosexuality Thomas Bower says
that acceptance of homosexual relationships as equal to
heterosexual ones "undermines the normative character of
marriage and family life."
I disagree. Extending social justice and civil
equality to one oppressed group does not have to mean
taking anything away from others in society. To provide
justice for a minority in our society that has been
cruelly oppressed and discriminated against enriches and
strengthens society as a whole.
In closing, I would add that humankind is
diversified. If homosexuality is in the natural order of
things, as all the evidence suggests, then the church and
law may need to shift their views of homosexuality as a
sin or a crime. I know this will be difficult for those
who wrongly claim all truth in the name of God, but it is
justice.
-----
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 18:12:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Ray Russ
Subject: Pro gay letters part 2 (fwd)
From: BCS41@aol.com
Subject: Pro gay letters part 2
BIG MONEY IN OPPOSING GAY RIGHTS
Editor;
In several states around the country, the proponents
of anti-gay initiatives continue to march forward. They
claim gays and lesbians are the cause of the decline of
the family. They say we are the roots of all the evils in
the nation.
What these carpetbaggers are really after is money
and votes. They scare people into the belief that we are
the enemy. Once they have an enemy, they have something
to fear. Once they are afraid, they write checks. The
scarier we become, the bigger the checks get. Get the
picture?
For their initiative petitions they collect the names
and addresses of hundreds of thousands of people. Once
they have that information, those people will start
getting letters telling them we are the enemy. Of course,
each letter will have inflammatory writing outlining why
they believe this is so and what they intend to do about
it. Of course, each letter will include a return envelope
in which to send back a big check. Get the picture?
-----
EX-GAY?
Editor;
In his September 15 letter, Bob Davies of San Rafael,
California claims that his "ex-gay" organization receives
hundreds of letters and phone calls monthly from men and
woman who do not want to be homosexual any longer. I'm
not surprised, considering the great penalties gay people
in our society pay for being different. If there were an
organization that claimed to be able to make black people
white, I'm sure it would receive some inquiries, too, for
the same reason.
It would have been more educational if Mr. Davies had
reported just how many successes his organization has had.
In my experience as a gay man researching ex-gay groups I
haven't found a single one that is willing to release
verifiable results to back up their claims.
As for Mr. Davies' claim that he himself is no longer
gay, I'm happy if he's happy. Personal experience tells
me he's a very rare case, the proverbial needle in the
haystack. I've known dozens of gay men in my lifetime who
at one time or another were pressured or lured into the
fundamentalist-run ex-gay movement and all it caused them
was more pain. No one I know ever changed. Not only
that, no gay person I've ever met has known of anyone who
has changed. Where are all these supposedly ex-gays
hiding?
-----
ACCEPT DIVERSITY, GAYS
Editor;
When I come across someone who believes that treating
gay people fairly and equally is a "threat to the family"
I see someone who is trying to rationalize a prejudice.
The gay individuals and couples I know lead quiet
lives in ordinary neighborhoods. I don't see how being
nice to them and letting them live a life that's right for
them can be construed as harming anyone else.
I think some people are afraid that if kids see gay
people in everyday, normal life they will decide to become
gay, too, which is nonsense. We know that's not the way
it works.
We accept and even cherish diversity among plants and
animals, yet some of us rigidly demand that all people be
narrowly alike. Everyone is a unique individual,
especially in matters of love. What attracts the eye and
captures the heart is unique to each person.
Here in America people have the freedom to be
different. We should stop being threatened by differences
and instead find them interesting. Our society is a
complex tapestry with threads of many kinds.
-----
FREE PRESS PRINTS ANTI GAY COMMENTS
Editor;
One reason people get so offended by Don Feder is not
because of his outrageous lunatic-right views but because
he employs phony techniques of false association, non
sequiters, mangled statistics, and the like, knowing that
his conclusions are therefore dishonest. Just take a look
at his latest vicious anti-gay diatribe.
In a free society, we need to hear all opinions, even the
obnoxious ones. I wonder, though, if your paper would
publish columns that argue blacks are genetically inferior
to whites, or how Jews have a cunning conspiracy to
control the world's economies. They, too, are obnoxious
opinions held by many Americans.
On the other hand, speaking as a gay man, I am aware that
the average non-gay person doesn't take much time to think
about the irrational, nasty hatred that we see daily and
which constantly worries us.
Oh, they are peripherally aware of it, but they have more
pressing concerns and more interest in issues that
directly affect themselves. Perhaps they need to think
about it a bit more, and columns like Feders's does that.
Feder has a hard-core following of haters whose minds are
permanently closed, but he shows the vast majority of
Americans, who are by and large fair-minded and good-
hearted, why gay rights legislation is necessary.
Maybe I've watched too many old movies, but I think good
will win out over evil. But we have to see the villain.
If people see the face of bigotry, as they do regularly in
Feder's columns, perhaps they will be motivated to combat
it.
-----
MORE ON FLAUNTING
Editor,
Whenever I have a letter printed in the paper
concerning gay rights, someone invariably mails me an
anonymous note saying "Keep your sex in he bedroom where
it belongs - we do not flaunt our sex like you do."
It a sad but all-too-common mentality. Merely by
existing and being honest about it is considered
flaunting. Asking to be treated fairly is considered
special privilege. Equal treatment is somehow
threatening, as though being tolerant and fair to
homosexuals takes something away from heterosexuals. Some
people, it seems, not only want gays back in the closet,
hiding and lying, they want to cement that door shut.
I don't consider arguments in favor of equal rights
and fair treatment for gays in housing, employment, etc.
to be "sex talk." Personally, I would like nothing better
than to keep my private sexual life private, because it's
nobody else's business. The people who make it an issue
are those who think it is o.k. to single me and my friends
out for mistreatment because of who we love. As long as
that happens, then we must and will speak up and object.
As for "flaunting," heterosexuals have public
weddings, marriage announcements published in the
newspaper (along with affectionate-appearing photographs),
wear wedding rings, often hold hands, hug or even kiss in
public, cuddle together at the movie theater, etc. You
don't see gay people doing that. I guess flaunting is in
the eye of the beholder.
-----
ELIMINATE REFERENCES TO GAYS? (SARCASTIC TONE)
Editor,
Regarding the recent controversy over teaching about
homosexuality in the schools, I have a proposal: Ask the
Des Moines school board to eliminate ALL mention of
homosexuals from our history books, literature, the
airways and film.
We can't stop the problem by simply preventing information
about homosexuals from being taught. Sooner or later some
student - probably an intelligent, open-minded
troublemaker - might become curious about who wrote
"Leaves of Grass," or the composer who created the holiday
classic "The Nutcracker Suite."
Our children must be prevented from learning this
information at all cost if we are to succeed in keeping
them uneducated.
The music of Tchaikovsky, Copland, Bernstein and Cole
Porter have to go. Ban the writings of Walt Whitman, E.
M. Forster, Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote, Virginia
Woolf, Gertrude Stein, Gore Vidal and Plato. Remove the
creations of Michaelangelo (and all those beautiful male
nudes!) from our art history texts. Buy up and destroy
all the old Rock Hudson movies. Get Elton John off the
radio. Erase Alexander the Great, Richard the Lionhearted
and Lawrence of Arabia from military histories. Sanitize
Eleanor Roosevelt. Prevent mention of Edward II, King of
England.
And this is just the beginning.
Let's put an end to all these mind-expanding educational
programs before something really bad happens! Once our
children start to think and question, we might lose
control, and see social justice and civil rights for gays
and lesbians become a reality.
-----
IN THE GENES?
Editor,
In the April 8 letters, one person wrote "Since gay
sex doesn't result in offspring, homosexuals can't very
well pass their genes to future generations." He reveals
an incredibly shallow understanding of heredity.
Scientific studies done in the past few years by the
Boston University School of Medicine, UCLA, The Salk
Institute for Biological Studies, The National Institute
of Mental Health, State University of New York, and others
have found evidence indicating a genetic component to
sexual orientation. These have been widely reported in
newspapers, magazines, radio and television.
The most recent work was done by a research team at
the National Cancer Institute under Dr. Dean Hamer. Hamer
was struck by the fact that gay men are more likely to
have gay male relatives on their mother's side than their
father's. This led him to suspect the X-chromosome -
because males have only one X-chromosome, which they
receive from their mothers - as a contributory factor to
homosexuality. That's just what he found.
If the writer is truly interested in learning the
truth on this issue, I suggest he go to the library and
look up the March 1993 issue of Atlantic Magazine, which
has a lengthy and persuasive article by author Chandler
Burr. The author says that after 50 years of study the
bottom line is clear: "Homosexuality is highly
attributable to genetics - by some measures up to 70
percent attributable. Five decades of psychiatric
evidence demonstrates that homosexuality is immutable."
These studies anger those who have a prejudice
against homosexuals because they discredit their arguments
that it is a choice and it is unnatural. If it's in
someone's genes then it would seem, by definition, to be
natural - of and from nature.
-----
GOOD OLD DAYS?
Two July 9 letter-writers, admirers of Pat Buchanan and
the religious right, long for the morality of the past.
One of them says "ask your parents and grandparents" about
the days when we had a healthier society. Everyone was
much more moral back then.
Let's take a look at those virtuous days of my parents and
grandparents.
Racism was rampant, discrimination perfectly acceptable.
During the 1950s my father, who ran a small-town bar,
refused to serve black people. My grandmother was born
(out of wedlock) at a time women weren't allowed to vote,
were ordered about and occasionally battered by their
husbands. My mother had a very abusive, alcoholic father
who constantly cheated on my grandmother and beat her, and
when she went to her church for guidance she was told that
the husband is master of the household.
My mother had a favorite uncle, a bachelor, who was fun
and clever but subject to bouts of intense depression. At
the age of 28 he blew his head off with a shotgun.
Looking back today my mother says he was probably
homosexual. There was no support, comfort or
understanding of that back then. To borrow a phrase from
one of the July 9 writers, it was the good old days when
"sodomy was viewed as a form of perversion."
Yes, the good old days. Syphilis was widespread, and
fatal (no penicillin yet). The great depression, a period
with the highest divorce rate ever. A few wars. The
holocaust. McCarthyist witch hunts. Back-alley
abortions. Income tax rates above 90%. Homosexuals
committed to mental institutions for lobotomies or
castration. KKK lynching down south. The origins of the
Mafia, bootlegging during prohibition.
I think our society is better off today than in the "good
old days."
-----
HOMOPHOBIA IS HATEFUL, NOT JUST OPINION
Editor;
Mr. Greg Fleckenstein (Letters, April 4) says I am
"name-calling." He resents being called a bigot and a
hater just because he "stands up for his beliefs."
Those beliefs of his, as expressed in a March 23
letter, are that all gay people need to seek psychiatric
help, are unnatural, are responsible for the breakdown of
the family, are immoral and deviant, and that gays like me
should not be "tolerated." Boy, I'm sure glad he didn't
resort to name-calling.
Mr. Fleckenstein, it is prejudice, ignorance and
intolerance such as people like you exhibit that hurts a
lot of people. I speak from experience. It hurts gay
people, who learn to hate themselves. It hurts the
families of gays who are trying to accept and understand
their gay sons and daughters. It legitimizes the
discrimination of gay people in housing and employment.
It gives an excuse to the people who harass and beat up
gay people. It drives many gays into hiding and into
forced, unhappy marriages. And it makes many teenagers
who realize they are gay commit suicide.
I'm sorry if pointing out a little harsh reality has
brusied your feelings, Mr. Fleckenstein. I believe you
when you say you don't wish us any harm, but you fail to
realize that your attitudes about us translate into great
harm for us, both psychological and physical.
I hope you will do a little soul-searching, and a
little reading up on what the experts in the fields of
psychiatry and human sexuality have to say. Many of them
have spent their whole lives studying this issue. They
would take issue with every one of your opinions and
conclusions.
You may think you are debating some abstract
political idea but you are playing with people's very real
lives.
----
JESSE HELMS
Editor,
Senator Jesse Helms, the "Godly" senator from North
Carolina, pillar of the religious right, has spent most of
his lengthy tenure in Congress spouting racial bigotry,
finally quitting only when it became politically unwise.
These days he's into legislative gay-bashing. His
ambiguous amendment to the national education-funding bill
orders that any school offering support for or education
about homosexuality lose federal funding. No
instructional materials, no counseling, nothing. This
ensures that vulnerable gay and lesbian teenagers, who
already feel desperately alone and outcast, have nowhere
to turn when they're harassed and beaten up. It will
inevitably mean more pain, more closeted teens, more
dropouts (28% of gay teens drop out of high school now),
and an even higher suicide rate.
How did such a despicable man come to be considered
"Godly?" Maybe because of his efforts to promote the
tobacco industry, which is responsible for sending so many
new applicants to heaven each year.
-----
BIBLE ETC
Editor;
In his latest column, your radical right columnist
Cal Thomas criticizes President Clinton for "Biblical
revisionism" because of his comments on abortion and
homosexuality. Thomas says "Now comes a President who
wants to revise those rules that have been accepted as
doctrine for 2000 years."
If Mr. Thomas is the Biblical expert he pretends to
be, he should be well aware that Biblical interpretation
has changed over the years. Approximately 150 years ago
slavery was condoned and even blessed by Christians who
quoted Ephesians 6:5 ("Slaves, obey your earthly masters
with fear and trembling."). Women were relegated to
inferior positions with the justification of I Corinthians
14:34 ("Women should be silent in churches. For they are
not permitted to speak, but be subordinate.")
Today the denominations, of course, do not support
slavery. Did the Bible change? No, their interpretation
of the Bible did.
What influences lead us to new ways of understanding
Scripture? New scientific information, social changes and
personal experience are the greatest forces. Scientific
awareness of the homosexual orientation did not exist
until the 19th century. We have learned from decades of
careful study that people do not choose their sexual
orientation. And more people find out every day that
someone they know and like happens to be gay.
What the Bible teaches is of great significance. The
problem, however, is that popular attitudes are often read
into Biblical statements to justify personal prejudices.
This has been particularly true of homosexuality.
Today, a growing number of Biblical scholars
recognize that the Bible does not condemn loving,
monogamous, responsible homosexual relationships. The
Bible verses people use to condemn gay people have been
distorted, mistranslated, or incorrectly interpreted,
resulting in hurt to people against whom the original text
was not directed.
-----
GUEST EDITORIAL ON GAY ISSUE
BY STOSINE
As a gay man of 41, I sometimes feel discouraged
about the state of acceptance and understanding of
homosexuality in America. I think we have come a long way
- at least the issue is being discussed now - but I still
see much of the same prejudice and ignorance, and hear
many of the same arguments as ten years ago. I see anti-
gay propositions in Oregon, Colorado, Maine and Florida.
Some succeed, some fail. I think we are making progress,
but sometimes it seems excruciatingly slow. Two steps
forward, one step back.
I see people like Pat Robertson purse their lips and
talk about life style choice and use Scripture to justify
their prejudice. They have turned the Good Book, with its
instructions to love unconditionally and judge not, into a
weapon. They oppose fairness and equality for gays,
calling basic rights a "special privilege" that gays
should not have. They use Scripture and invoke
Christianity to encourage ordinarily good people to act on
their fears rather than their virtues.
This encourages hate, intolerance, discrimination and
even violence. In a study of 400 young men incarcerated
for gay-bashing, the Boston Globe reported that the
bashers generally found nothing wrong in what they did
and, more often than not, said their religious leaders and
traditions sanctioned their behavior. One teenager said
that the pastor of his church had said "Homosexuals
represent the devil, Satan" and that the Rev. Jerry
Falwell had echoed that charge.
Despite what the Bible commands, some Christians
judge their gay neighbor. They pick and choose parts of
Scripture, such as Leviticus, to support their existing
prejudices against gays, but they ignore
literally hundreds of other passages on the same pages
which, for example, forbid a woman to wear the color red
or a man to shave, eating pork, shopping on Sunday or
wearing garments made of two different kinds of material.
If homosexuality were such an evil, you would expect
to have Jesus say something about it. The fact is He
didn't say one word about it, nor is it one of the Ten
Commandments.
Some people say that being gay is a matter of choice,
which contradicts the knowledgeable researchers in the
field of human sexuality, such as Kinsey and Masters &
Johnson, who state clearly that sexual orientation is
something over which a person has no control. The complex
workings of the brain which cause sexual attraction are
still a mystery, but one thing the experts can say with
certainty is that gay people do not choose to be gay.
The only choice for a gay person is to live in the
closet, lying and hiding, or to be honest about who they
are and live life openly. I didn't choose to be gay, but
I did choose to tell the truth. And the only way I can
"promote" my sexual orientation is to show other gay and
lesbian people that you can be gay, live openly and lead a
full and happy and normal life. The fact that I have been
in a loving, monogamous relationship for over 15 years now
has given hope to many younger gays and surprised many
anti-gay persons who cling to stereotyped notions.
It doesn't take a genius to understand that being gay
is not a choice. Why would 20 million Americans choose a
lifestyle for which they will be scorned by an intolerant
society? A lifestyle in which committed couples are not
entitled to the same legal benefits as straight married
couples? A lifestyle for which they might get beaten up
or killed? A lifestyle that may very well isolate them
from friends and family?
Some people confuse being gay with sexual activity.
They think if gays stop doing sexual acts, they'll stop
being gay, when in fact it is something inside, just as it
is for heterosexuals. Being gay is not a rebellion
against society, it is conforming to what one feels
inside.
Our critics also ignore a number of basic facts of
life. Allow me to recite them. Gays pay taxes; gays
vote; gays frequently have children; gays run for, win and
competently fulfill the duties of elected office. There
are gays out there wearing Superbowl rings. Gays also
contribute heavily to every aspect of the world's cultures
and societies. Saying otherwise is insupportable idiocy.
To depict us as frivolous creatures engaged in an endless
search for sexual thrills is to deny that we can achieve
excellence as real adults in the real world.
Lesbians and gays are subject to the same terrifying,
chaotic free falls into love endured by everyone else.
We're stupid in love, romantic in courtship and deeply
committed over the long term.
Let me tell you about a man. He still lives in the
small town of his birth, which I'll call Rolling Rock,
Iowa. He lives there on a farm with his mother. He never
had a chance to do anything about being gay; he never had
any such love in his life. He never marched in a rally or
wrote a letter to the editor. A couple of years ago a
fight was waged in Iowa to pass a civil rights law that
included gays. People across the state were asked to
write their legislators.
The man from Rolling Rock sent organizers a copy of
the letter he sent to his legislator. It said, "I am
writing to support the civil rights bill for lesbians and
gay men. I have lived and farmed in Iowa all my life. If
such a bill had existed 40 years ago my life might not
have had to be as lonely as it has been. I am 60 years
old, and I am a gay man." He signed it. He sent it.
People wonder sometimes why gays "have to" do some
things, in much the same way they wonder why heterosexuals
"have to" get married. Why do we "have to" have marches
or rallies? Why do we "have to" insist upon being written
into existing civil rights laws? Why do we have to shout
about anything at all?
Let me tell you why. Living a relatively bearable
existence doesn't cut it. Too many people out there live
their entire lives like the man from Rolling Rock, and
human beings deserve better. Even in big cities, gay help
lines get calls in the middle of the night from people who
need to talk about coming out of the lonely closet. These
people are fighting the fight of their lives. They are
struggling to give themselves permission to love.. Plus,
there are people out there who do everything in their
power to make the lives of gay people miserable. So, not
only do gays "have to" celebrate their pride, but their
heterosexual friends "have to" reject neutrality in favor
of demonstrating as much support as possible.
Prejudice, ignorance and intolerance of gays hurts a
lot of people. I speak from experience. It hurts gay
people, who learn to hate themselves. It hurts the
families of gays who are trying to accept and understand
their gay sons and daughters. It legitimizes the
discrimination of gay people in housing and employment.
It gives an excuse to the people who harass and beat up
gay people. It drives many gays into forced, unhappy
marriages. And those attitudes make many teenagers who
realize they are gay commit suicide.
(Approximately 1130 words)
-----
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 18:14:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Ray Russ
Subject: Pro gay letters pt 3 (fwd)
From: BCS41@aol.com
Subject: Pro gay letters pt 3
MARRIAGE ENCOURAGES MONOGAMY AMONG GAYS
Does marriage encourage sexual monogamy? Yes, I think
that it does. At least, it can't hurt! Of course there
will always be those who commit adultery, but in general I
think one of the benefits of the institution of marriage
is that it encourages a encourage commitment to one
person.
But in Sunday's Gazette a self-described "blood-bought,
born-again, spirit-filled Christian" said no. He said
"mankind's institutions" like marriage are of no help
because only being religious makes a person monogamous.
He opposes allowing homosexuals to marry because "marriage
won't help them to be any more monogamous than
heterosexuals." It was quite odd, I thought, to come
across a born-again Christian who criticizes the
institution of marriage.
Well, is he right? Are the religious more monogamous than
everyone else? One study says no. In the March 8 issue
of Newsweek (page 56) there was a review of the new 432-
page book "The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior." It said
that the authors surveyed nearly 8,000 Americans over the
past nine years. Their statistics showed that "very
religious" people actually cheat on their spouses more
than plain old "religious" people. One 31-year-old female
prostitute is quoted as saying, "I love doing conventions,
particularly the Republicans. Not only Republicans;
almost any very conservative group. Many of these come to
these functions without wives, but even if they have their
wives, they sneak around and they serve up sex action like
you wouldn't believe." Hey, look at Jimmy Swaggart.
Would it be fair to say, therefore, that the "very
religious" should be denied the right to marry, along with
gays, since they often fail at the goal of monogamy?
-----
CHARACTERISTICS OF HOMOPHOBIA
Editor;
Living in a university town, as I do (Iowa City is
home to the University of Iowa) I get to meet many
educated professionals. The other day I was talking with
a clinical psychologist about the type of responses I get
- often nasty and irrational - after I have a letter about
homosexuality published in the newspaper. We talked about
why some people develop homophobia.
First of all, they have to be angry. It doesn't
matter whether they are angry at themselves, their parents
or at the world. Angry people need to take their anger
out on something, and any minority group serves the
purpose. Today, gay people make a particularly inviting
target.
Secondly, they feel insecure. They constantly rate
themselves against others. When people are confident
enough not to rate themselves or others they don't get
turned off by blacks joining the baseball league, women
running corporations or gays fighting in the military.
Along with a combination of anger and insecurity,
they have another characteristic. They don't think in a
reasonable and logical manner. For example, how can
people object to a gay man serving in the military when
that person has already served with distinction for 20
years? That's like saying a woman could not raise a
healthy family for years after it is discovered she has no marriage
papers. If homosexuality made a difference, then why
wasn't that difference observed during the 20 years that
person served?
Another consequence of anger and insecurity is that
it blinds people to evidence. They have a need not to see
that their views are contradicted by the facts, by experts
or by scientific discoveries.
-----
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
The term "political correctness" is a form of
Orwellian double-speak, formerly used in Stalinist Russia
to silence political opponents, and today used by
demagogues to deflect attention from their own specious
arguments. Like its' counterpart "un-American" used by
anti-Communist witch-hunter Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the
1950's, it is an empty phrase used an excuse to avoid
engaging the real issues. In short, it is a smear term,
harmful to thoughtful discussion.
-----
RELIGIOUS RIGHT
Editor,
Members of the religious right say that people who approve
of Rev. Jesse Jackson's political activities while
criticizing Pat Robertson's are guilty of a double-
standard. But Jackson and Robertson worship two vastly
different Gods. Jackson worships a loving, tolerant God
and seeks to include many diverse groups of people, while
Robertson uses his idea of a stern, judgmental God to
justify excluding all the people who don't pass his litmus
test on political issues.
The religious right has taken the term "Christian" and
turned it into a political code word, ignoring the fact
that millions of faithful Christians disagree with their
political agenda and do not support the exclusionary and
often unconstitutional solutions they offer for our
nation's problems.
They say they favor limiting the power of government, yet
when it comes to enforcing their own beliefs they want
laws to persecute gay people, control women's reproductive
rights, censor books and movies, teach creationism, make
everyone pray when they pray, etc. Pat Robertson has said
on his 700 Club television show that only ultra-religious
Christians are qualified to have the "reign" of
government. They call their critics "anti-Christian
bigots." Can a Christian who disagrees with their
politics be an anti-Christian bigot?
Robertson and the others are dirtying Christianity by
their grab for worldly political power. It's disturbing
to see the image of a Christian being changed from love,
kindness and setting a good example to one of nasty
partisan politics, intolerance, ignorance and name-
calling.
-----
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
The fundamentalist, or radical right, agenda today
apparently includes more than just degrading the science
education of our children with the nonsense of
creationism. They use similar tactics of fabrication and
distortion to rewrite our nation's history in their favor
as well.
Those who say that America was "founded" on Christianity
or that our Constitution "contains no separation of church
and state" badly need to go back to history class. It is
just not true.
America was founded by people who were fleeing the
absolutism and cruelty of governments dominated by state
religions. Our founders were extremely concerned about
keeping church and state separate because they had seen
firsthand the consequences of mixing them.
For example, laws enacted by Virginia Governor Thomas Dale
in 1612 included being whipped three times for saying
anything disrespectful of a minister, a "bodkin (knife)
thrust through the tongue" for cursing and compulsory
tithes of ten percent of everyone's income to the church.
Non-attendance at church was punishable by a whipping or,
on the second offense, by six months in jail.
Fundamentalists in other states enacted similar laws. New
York law required baptism of all children under penalty of
the arrest and imprisonment of their parents, and members
of other religions (most notably Quakers) were sentenced
to hard labor for the crime of preaching a religion other
than the official one. Political privileges were limited
to Christians and this did not include Catholics or Jews.
Most of our founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson,
James Madison, Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin were skeptics
or deists. When they mentioned God or Creator they were
referring to nature's god, a more open-minded and less
dogmatic belief than even the most liberal Christians
today.
For over ten years prior to the writing of our
Constitution religious activists - the Pat Robertson types
of their time - pressured their representatives to put
references to God, Christianity and Jesus Christ into it.
Not only were such references not put in, but safeguards
against religious intrusions into government were made.
The very first thing that was established was that there
would be no religious test for office. In other words,
persons of any religion - or no religion - have the same
right to hold public office.
Even a proposal to open the Constitutional Convention with
prayer was nixed by a huge majority.
One of the first treaties we ever concluded as a new
nation was the Treaty of Tripoli with the Barbary pirates
in 1797, and it says, "The government of the United States
is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian
religion..." Congress unanimously passed it and it was
signed by President John Adams.
This "wall of separation" was made for religion's benefit
as well as government's. Just look around the world today
at nations like Iran whose governments are more like
religious dictatorships, with one "official" religion.
America has so far been able to avoid the tyranny,
oppression, terrorism, and religious war that
characterizes so many nations around the world which have
no separation of church and state as we do.
The rise of fundamentalist Islam and the rush to create
Islamic Republics in Iran is the mirror-image of what
fundamentalists are calling for here in America. If that
seems like a harsh judgment, so be it. That's the way it
looks to me. They would abolish religious liberty as we
have known it throughout the unique American experiment
and would relegate to second-class citizens those who did
not meet the rigid requirements of orthodoxy. It
certainly should be viewed with alarm by those who hold
minority religious beliefs and those who have exercised
their right to hold no religious convictions.
The Religious Right's claim of an exclusive endorsement
from God is disturbing. Of course we need ethics and
morals in government, but let's not imply that without
religion - or without the "correct" religion - a person
cannot be ethical or moral. Some of the finest, most
moral people I know are not religious while some of the
worst scoundrels in public and private life are, or loudly
proclaim themselves to be, religious.
I'm with James S. Tinney, a Howard University political
scientist and a Pentacostal theologian, who commented
after a large fundamentalist "Washington for Jesus" rally,
"I reject the idea that Washington should be for Jesus or
Muhammed or Buddha, or any other religious figure. It
should be for all the people of every faith or of no
faith."
-----
SODOMY LAWS
Editor;
The Virginia sodomy law has been cited in attacking
the decision of a judge to let a mother raise her child.
The argument goes: She is a lesbian and therefore violates
Virginia's anti-sodomy law.
The people who make this argument seem unbothered by
the fact that she has never been charged, tried or
convicted under the sodomy law. Their argument is that if
one says one is gay or lesbian - if one merely
acknowledges that status - one is automatically guilty of
the crime of sodomy.
This provides us with the strongest argument for the
repeal of sodomy laws in the 20-odd states that still have
them (Iowa doesn't). Sodomy laws are used to make gay men
and women "presumptive felons" - guilty without a trial -
and to consequently deprive them of civil and human
rights, like the right to raise one's own children. Or
serve one's country. Or hold a job.
If we believe in the right to freedom of speech and
the right to equal treatment in this society, then states
like Virginia should repeal their sodomy laws.
-----
GROWING UP GAY
Often my spiritual energy has been drained trying to
answer the question "How can you be both gay and
Christian?" It has been a deeply painful process.
Let me tell my faith story. As a boy I was often sick and
spent many nights on a respirator. Eventually, because of
my illness, I had to leave my family to attend school in
another state. I was happy for a while, but all was not
well. It puzzled me that most of my friends were
interested in girls and I was not, but it didn't bother me
too much. I figured I would change to be like the other
boys.
In college I became friends with a fellow. Gradually I
realized I was in love with him, which frightened me very
much. I didn't know what I had done to be the way I was,
but I knew it must have been bad. I knew it was so
terrible that I could never tell anyone, and I began to
walk in front of cars on the highway by the woods, hoping
that they would take me away from my pain.
And so the years passed. My friend married a young woman,
and I was best man. Three months later, I decided I must
find a way to change or I could not go on living. I got
up enough courage to visit the village pastor, and I asked
"What I want to know is if you believe in healing for
homosexuals."
There. I had said it. Someone knew. I had never felt so
naked, so exposed, so vulnerable. Or so honest. I felt a
huge weight lifted from me. The pastor looked at me
without even batting an eye and calmly said "That depends
on whether there is a brokenness."
I was stunned. I had finally experienced the grace I had
heard about for so long. I began to see that the
brokenness in my life came not from my homosexuality, but
from the deep homophobia of my church and society that I
had so thoroughly internalized as to make it seem natural.
I have learned that the spiritual affliction of our times
is not homosexuality, but homophobia. It is the fear and
rejection of children and adults who discover themselves
to be gay that has caused so much pain and suffering.
That is what is an abomination in the eyes of God.
-----
RELIGIOUS RIGHT
To The Editor -
The more I see and hear the actions of the so-called
Christian Coalition the more I think about a line Jimmy
Stewart said in
"Fools Parade": "God uses good people; the bad ones use
God."
-----
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES
Editor;
A recent study conducted at the Harvard School of
Public Health and the Center for Health Policy Studies in
Washington found that large numbers of men and women have
had fleeting homosexual feelings.
The significance of this study must not be
overlooked. I believe that a great deal of homophobia is
generated by heterosexuals who are bothered by having had
such a thought.
Since these basically heterosexual people were able
to control their brief impulses easily they assume
everyone ought to be able to exercise similar self-
control. They think homosexuals are weak or immoral for
giving in to those thoughts, not realizing that for gay
men and women the orientation is central, not fleeting.
Also, homosexual thoughts bring concern, even panic,
to many people, and persons who have an underlying fear of
their own homosexual tendencies are vociferously abusive
in their attacks against homosexuality. Those who do not
feel threatened by any homosexual leanings within
themselves are more understanding and relaxed in their
attitudes about gay people.
-----
GAYS A THREAT?
Editor;
Today there is a lot of propaganda against gay people
being disseminated by fundamentalist religious and
conservative groups. They portray gays as perverted,
deviants and weirdos. They circulate videotapes that show
extreme examples of homosexuals' behavior. They say that
gays are a threat to the nation's social and political
order, and use scare tactics to bring in donations.
It would be just as easy to review the history of
heterosexual conduct - the Roman orgies, gang rapes in
Massachusetts, prostitution, Tailhook, the Hillside
Strangler murders, etc. - and use those examples to
discredit all heterosexuals. If I stacked the deck and
showed only the outrageous and offensive moments, I would
be doing exactly what the critics of gays are doing. (I'm
sure I could compile some pretty weird video pictures of
heterosexual behavior from the Mardis Gras in New
Orleans.)
There are millions of gay people in the United
States. Most do not engage in flamboyant San Francisco-
style displays of their identities. All of the gay people
I know tend to avoid calling attention to themselves
because of the penalties society imposes on them because
of their difference.
It is not "perversion" when a gay person acts
according to his or her nature. The perversion occurs
when people force homosexuals to be heterosexual. The
truth is that gays have been and continue to be oppressed
into the unnatural lifestyle of pretending to be straight.
-----
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 1995 18:15:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Pro gay letters part 4 (fwd)
From: BCS41@aol.com
Subject: Pro gay letters part 4
BIBLE
Editor;
In Sunday's Register, Rep. Hurley says that the Bible
tells us right from wrong, and therefore should be
considered in "how we deal with legislation" on
homosexuality.
Unfortunately, many people do not focus on the
overriding message of the Bible, which is love and
compassion, but on specific verses that justify their
existing prejudices. We must be careful not to legislate
like that, or to be consistent we will have to create a
lot of new laws.
The same people who quote from the Bible on
homosexuality ignore other verses in the same sections
which, for example, forbid a woman to wear the color red
or a man to shave. They no longer quote the parts of the
Bible that say witches must be put to death, but always
know exactly where old passages are about "man lying with
man."
The Bible also says widows must not remarry (I Tim.
5:5) or be admitted to church if under 60 years old (I
Tim. 5:9). It says women may not have authority over men
(I Tim. 2:8), and it forbids working on Sunday (Ex. 35:1-2
and Num. 15:32-36), blasphemy (Lev. 24:10-14,23), killing
cattle without bringing an offering to priests (Lev. 17:2-
5), or kindling a fire on Sabbath day (Ex. 25:2,3 and Ex.
31:14). Leviticus, which is often invoked against
homosexuals, also prohibits eating raw meat, the planting
of two different kinds of seed in the same field, and
wearing garments with two different kinds of yarn.
People have, throughout history, been able to justify
their prejudices on almost any subject by finding certain
passages and lifting them out of context. The
fundamentalists of the 18th century even quoted the Bible
to justify slavery.
Let us remember, if homosexuality were such an evil,
you would expect to have Jesus say something about it.
The fact is He didn't, nor is it one of the Ten
Commandments.
Rather than legislating by selective verses taken out
of context, let's keep these important lessons of the
Bible in mind when making our laws: "Judge not lest you be
judged. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love
your neighbor as you love yourself."
-----
EX GAYS
In his Feb. 27 letter, Randy Schulke says gays "pooh-
pooh older, wiser and especially religious values" and
compares me, a gay man, to an alcoholic, lacking
sufficient willpower to change my "tendencies."
Why do people like Mr. Schulke "pooh-pooh" the
scientific studies done by the Boston University School of
Medicine, UCLA, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies,
The National Institute of Mental Health, State University
of New York, and others? Why do they persist in
contradicting all the knowledgeable researchers in the
field of human sexuality who have spent decades studying
this issue?
I think they cling to stereotyped, outdated notions
because they find it easier and more comfortable to coddle
their prejudices.
It's not possible to change someone's in-born sexual
orientation, but it is possible to make them miserable
over it. There is an "ex-gay" movement today that preys
on the spiritually and emotionally wounded. Using the
tenets of born-again fundamentalism, they try to convince
dissatisfied homosexuals - usually young gay men just
coming out and stressed by family pressure and society's
intolerance - that they can change by suppressing their
orientation.
Countless people have been misled by ex-gay
ministries into believing that sexual orientation can be
changed, only to find, even years later, that they had
found only temporary happiness in the delusion that they
had changed. These "ex-gays" no longer call themselves
gay but continue to have same-sex erotic feelings and
dreams.
Add to that the pain of many spouses of these
individuals who thought they had married a heterosexual.
Anyone can suppress one's feelings and live a lie,
for a time, but it doesn't work in the long run. Besides,
living a lie doesn't seem like much of a Christian ethic.
Homosexual relationships shouldn't be compared to
alcoholism, they should be compared to heterosexual
relationships. The similarities far outweigh the
differences. I am 41 years old and I have been in a
loving relationship with my companion for more than 14
years, faithfully and monogamously. We consider ourselves
committed to each other for life. We cannot legally
"marry" because secular law in our society will not allow
it. We have no more in common with alcoholics than does
Mr. Schulke and his wife.
I would like nothing better than to have my private
sexual life not an issue, because it's nobody else's
business. The people who make it an issue are the people
who think it is o.k. to single me and my friends out for
mistreatment because of who we love. As long as that
happens, then we must and will speak up and object.
-----
GAYS LIKE LEFTIES?
Editor;
In his December 17 letter A. J. Wilhite says it is an
insult to compare a gay person to a left-handed person
like him who was "born this way and have to live, and
fight and adjust to this...society." For decades, experts
in the field of human sexuality have said they believe
gays are also "born that way" and recent scientific
findings support this. Gays also have to live, fight and
adjust to a society that demands conformity.
If Mr. Wilhite feels insulted at this mild but
accurate comparison, then there is no word strong enough
to describe how I feel. I am a 42-year old gay man who
has been in a loving, monogamous relationship with my
companion for 16 years, living as normal and ordinary an
everyday life as any married couple, yet I see anti-gay
comments that compare all gays to alcoholics, drug
addicts, liars, thieves, pedophiles, rapists, adulterers,
and gamblers. Whew. My partner and I have nothing in
common with any of those other categories, which all
involve a victim. Why do people insist on comparing us to
horrible things when we are most similar to is a
heterosexual couple who have been married for 16 years?
-----
BIBLE
Editor,
Some people have been asserting that catastrophes
such as flooding, draught and AIDS were manifestations of
God's wrath. They claim to have inside knowledge of what
God was intending, and it is always the perceived sins of
other Americans, not themselves, who are to blame.
The Bible is not a series of texts designed to
condemn the world and it's people. It is a collection of
teachings to help us live in harmony with each other.
Themes of compassion, patience, justice, love and
forgiveness run though its pages. Love thy neighbor,
judge not, etc.
Some of these people seem to have made God into
nothing more than a reflection of their own petty human
frailty.
If God is indeed angry, it is most likely with these
self-appointed saviors who claim that His will for us
includes intolerance, hatred and violence. Now that is
blasphemy worthy of God's vengeance.
-----
BIBLE
Editor,
The handful of Bible passages used to condemn gay
people are about as relevant today as the many passages
stating the world is flat (Isaiah 11:12, for example) or
Proverbs 31:6, stating that alcohol should be given to
those who are depressed so they may "forget their troubles
and worry no more," or the apostle Paul's many passages
denying women their full personhood.
In the 1800s a Methodist minister started a school to
teach women to read. A noted senator of the day said
"Next thing you know, the reverend will want to teach his
cows to read. The reverend should read his Bible."
When will people understand that just because
something appears in the bible doesn't make it
necessarily true or correct? "All that's in a gold mine
is not gold."
-----
CHOOSE TO BE GAY?
Editor,
It doesn't take a genius to understand that being gay
is not a choice. Why would 20 million Americans choose a
lifestyle for which they will be scorned by an intolerant
society? A lifestyle in w hich committed couples are not
entitled to the same legal benefits as straight married
couples? A lifestyle for which they might get beaten up
or killed? A lifestyle that may very well isolate them
from friends and family? The only choice a gay person has
is whether to accept being gay and live a happy,
productive life or deny it and live in a lonely closet.
-----
MARRIAGE
Editor,
It's funny how the same people who accuse gays of
being promiscuous also oppose letting them marry, which
would encourage monogamy and commitment.
-----
MANY KNOW GAYS
Editor,
Many people say they have no gay friends or
acquaintances. Of course they do, they just don't know
it. As the case of long-closeted Rock Hudson showed, gay
people are an invisible segment of the population, a
situation that perpetuates homophobia.
-----
GAY `LIFESTYLE'
Editor,
I have a life, not a lifestyle. There is no single
homosexual lifestyle any more than there is a single
heterosexual lifestyle.
----
HOW MANY GAYS?
Editor,
Many people question the statistic that 10 percent of
people are gay. From personal experience, I think it's
probably higher (it's amazing how much remains invisible
to most heterosexuals).
But, fine. Even assuming the 2 percent figure that
conservatives cite when they want to argue how
insignificant we and our concerns are is true, that still
amounts to more than 5 million Americans, or neatly twice
the population of the state of Iowa.
Five million people (2 percent) or 25 million (10
percent), or pick your own figure. Even there were only
TEN gay people in the whole world they would still be
entitled to be treated fairly and decently.
-----
GAY "BEHAVIOR"
Editor,
The problem I have with people who moralize about
"behavior" when talking about preventing AIDS is that they
are often using it as a code word for "don't be gay,"
reflecting an ignorance of the fact that sexual
orientation is not a choice.
A gay man can't switch, at will, to start finding
women sexually appealing any more than a heterosexual man
can will himself to desire only men.
I would like to point out to various ignoramuses that
gay people did not "cause" AIDS. It is true that here in
America the disease first appeared among the gay
community, but the epidemic began among heterosexuals in
Africa and overwhelmingly afflicts heterosexuals
worldwide.
-----
TEXTBOOK QUOTE
>From HUMAN SEXUALITY by James L. McCoy PhD, Professor of
Psychiatry, Houston. Published by Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., page 283:
"It is widely recognized among psychotherapists that men
who have an underlying fear of their own homosexual
tendencies are vociferously abusive in their attacks
against homosexuality. Those who do not feel threatened
by any homosexual leanings within themselves are more
understanding and relaxed in their dealing with people of
homosexual orientation."
-----
ANTI GAY REFERENDUMS
Editor,
It blows me away that people who profess to have
Christian values and family values take up shields and
spears to defend discrimination.
Hate is not a Christian value, a family value or a
traditional American value. To try to deny people their
rights because they are not exactly like us is cruel and
un-American.
-----
CURING GAYS
Editor,
To wish to change one's sexual orientation is
certainly OK if it is the individual who wishes to do so.
It is the perhaps well-intentioned who pressure
homosexuals to change who do a lot of damage.
The idea of "curing" homosexuality has a long and
unpleasant history. In this century, doctors and
moralists have tried castration, lobotomy, hormone
injections, aversion therapy and even shock treatments.
Virtually everyone now agrees that any effort to reverse
sexual orientation is not only futile, it is
psychologically harmful. In 1990 the American
Psychological Association condemned efforts to change
sexual orientation.
The Christian fundamentalist-run "ex-gay"
organizations are going a real disservice to people. They
encourage gays to suppress their normal feelings and
needs. With enough pressure, working on persons
programmed by society to have low self-esteem, you can
change any behavior superficially.
It is possible to change one's sexual behavior by
suppression or repression; there is no data which support
the changing of sexual orientation, a major difference.
These "ex-gays" continue to have same-sex dreams,
fantasies and arousal.
When you try to find an "ex gay" what you find are
rather sad, desperate people playing mind games and
semantics, no "cures" or lasting changes. The whole
motivation behind the movement to change gays is political
- fundamentalist and conservative politics dressed up in a
lab coat.
------
Editor;
Tim Hickman's experience growing up gay closely mirrors my own - having
sexual dreams of a gay nature and crushes on cute male classmates and TV
stars at an
early age, one day realizing in a panic that I'm one of those "queers" people
talk about and
I'd better not say anything to anybody, hearing and reading the most awful,
untrue things
that supposedly described people like me, struggling with self-worth and
loneliness,
thoughts of suicide, eventually coming out to the world's most wonderful
parents when I
couldn't bear lying to them any longer when answering their questions about
who I was
dating and when I was going to get married and give them grandchildren, and,
finally,
today speaking out for gay rights and justice while living with the man I fell
in love with
and consider that I "married" 16 years ago, today enjoying the acceptance of
my family,
friends, co-workers and neighbors.
I recognize Ian Binnie's ideas about homosexuality, too - unfortunately.
They are
a throwback to the slanderous things I heard about gays as a child which so
traumatized
me they sent me more than once to thoughts of suicide.
Gay people are people. We are just like heterosexuals. We fall in love.
We have
the same needs for companionship and a loving relationship. Yes, some gay
people are
loud and offensive, obnoxious or outrageous. So are some heterosexuals.
Yes, some gays
have been caught molesting children, but so have heterosexuals. Yes, some
gays hang out
at bars looking for a quick pick-up for sex, but a peek into any heterosexual
bar will reveal
heterosexual playboys cruising for the next conquest. Usually with age, and
after sowing
a few wild oats, both heterosexuals and homosexuals long to settle down into
a comfortable relationship.
--------
Editor;
Regarding Ralph Copeland's January 6 letter "Perversion can be changed,"
what is
truly vile and disgusting is this sort of thinking which seeks to vilify and
stereotype people
in order to mark them for abuse and exclusion. This desperate need to create
malicious enemies out of other people spawns the sort of sickness that destroys
democracy and dissolves the heart of civilization.
Mr. Copeland says he is convinced that homosexuality is not genetic.
Scientific
studies done by the Boston University School of Medicine, UCLA, The Salk
Institute for
Biological Studies, The National Institute of Mental Health, State University
of New York, and others, have found a genetic link to sexual orientation. Their
findings support
what experts in the fields of human sexuality and psychiatry have been saying
for decades, that sexual orientation is not a choice.
But whether or not homosexuality is genetic, as all these experts and
researchers
believe, actually makes no difference. This is America, where people have
the right to be
different even if they did "choose" to be. One thing is certain: People
who are prejudiced
against gays choose to be prejudiced and they can change if they want to.
The gay people I know never had the choice to be homosexual or not but were
forced to live lovingly and well within the sexuality they were given. What
they want is
what all people want: to be loved by their families, to live productive lives
and to form
meaningful relationships. They seek to move through the world without the
fear of losing
their jobs, being kicked out of their homes or suffering beatings or insults
because of who they are.
--
______ |"I do not feel obligated to believe that the same
\ /Tina M. Wood | God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and
\ / AL715@yfn.ysu.edu| intellect has intended us to forego their use."
\/ Cumberland, RI | --Galileo Galilei